MARCH 2019

SCHOLAR SERIES
Contemporary Issues in Housing

Falling Through the Cracks:

Homeless Students in Rhode Island
By Marjorie Pang Si En
HousingWorks RI at Roger Williams University is a
clearinghouse of information about housing in Rhode
Island. We conduct research and analyze data to inform
public policy.

We develop communications strategies and promote

dialogue about the relationship between housing and the
state’s economic future and our residents’ well-being.

SCHOLAR SERIES

HousingWorks RI at Roger Williams University is pleased

to be able to work with scholars and students across
multiple disciplines in highlighting new research in
housing affordability and related topics.
Falling Through the Cracks:
Homeless Students in Rhode Island
March 2019
By Marjorie Pang Si En
Introduction
Irene Glasser, Ph.D.
Adjunct Lecturer, Anthropology Department, Brown University
Research Associate, Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies,
Brown University
It is my pleasure to introduce you to Marjorie
Pang Si En’s HousingWorks RI: Scholar Series,
“Falling Through the Cracks: Homeless Students
in Rhode Island.” This work, which Ms. Pang
completed for her thesis in Public Policy at Brown
University, is an in-depth study of the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act (MVHAA)
implementation in Rhode Island. Ms. Pang was
able to analyze the strengths and weaknesses
of the MVHAA’s implementation and make
recommendations for strengthening the program.
As a researcher and advocate in the field of
homelessness, I was very impressed by the intent
of the MVHAA, which ensures that the student
who is experiencing homelessness continues to
progress in their education and is not impeded
in their academic and social development by an
episode of homelessness. The MVHAA provides
funding and mechanisms to help the student
experiencing homelessness in areas such as
providing transportation to and from the school of
origin, providing school supplies and appropriate
clothing, tutoring support, and waiving fees for
participation in extracurricular activities.
A very strong aspect of the MVHAA is that it
recognizes not just the children and youth living
with their families in homeless shelters, but also
the far greater number living in doubled-up
homeless situations. The doubled-up homeless are
those families staying, temporarily, with family
or friends. These are the families who are living
“under the radar” in terms of accessing help. As you
will see in Ms. Pang’s work, here is where Rhode
Island has challenges in identifying all students
experiencing homelessness, including those who
are living doubled-up. In 2014-15 Rhode Island
identified only 9.7 percent of extremely poor
children and youth as homeless instead of the
30 percent, which is the national estimate of the
percentage of extremely poor children, and youth
in grades K-12 who will experience homelessness.
Ms. Pang has identified some of the reasons for
the under identification of children and youth
experiencing homelessness in Rhode Island. These
reasons include the lack of collaboration with
community organizations who are in touch with
doubled-up families, the fact that some of the Local
Education Agencies (LEAs) do not apply for the
MVHAA subgrants that could give the LEAs more
money for outreach, and the insufficient training
of the LEA liaisons and other school personnel
in the art of identifying children and youth
who are experiencing homelessness. Ms. Pang’s
recommendations would enable Rhode Island to
greatly extend the reach of the MVHAA and ensure
the educational development of children and youth
experiencing homelessness in Rhode Island.
HousingWorks RI Scholar Series 1
Falling Through the Cracks:
Homeless Students in Rhode Island
Summary
“Falling Through the Cracks: Homeless Students in Rhode
Island” is a case study which examines the effectiveness
of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
(MVHAA) as implemented in Rhode Island from a
bottom-up perspective and outcomes-based approach.
The MVHAA is a federal law that provides children and
youth experiencing homelessness with the protections
and services that will allow them to enroll in and attend
school, complete high school, and continue on to higher
education. Some of the provisions of the MVHAA
include transportation to and from the school of origin
when needed, referrals to community agencies that can
provide the needed school supplies including appropriate
clothing, tutoring support, fee waivers for participation
in extracurricular activities, as well as other services
needed to support their academic success and wellbeing.1
In 2017, Rhode Island received $263,597 for the MVHAA.2
These funds supported subgrants to five school districts
to provide additional resources to identify and serve
students experiencing homelessness.
This study finds that the MVHAA implemented in
Rhode Island under-identifies students experiencing
homelessness, and may therefore impede those students’
access to resources to which they are legally entitled.
Under-identification is compounded by the lack of federal
and state funding for some of the school districts. A key
to the implementation of the MVHAA is the homeless
education liaisons, and we found that there was limited
collaboration between the homeless education liaisons
and other service providers for low-income Rhode
Islanders in most cities and towns. According to the
national study Out of the Shadows: A State-by-State
Ranking of Accountability for Homeless Students, Rhode
Island is one of the worst performing states at identifying
children and youth experiencing homelessness.3
2 HousingWorks RI Scholar Series
Based on these findings and a survey of best
practices from other states, this research puts
forth the following recommendations:
• Improve and increase the contacts between the
homeless education liaisons and family shelter staff
• Minimize the barriers to Local Education Agencies
(LEAs) receiving subgrants from the MVHAA
• Provide for school-based homeless education
liaisons in addition to the LEA-based homeless
education liaisons
• Institute mandatory training regarding child and
family homelessness for school personnel
• Increase community awareness about homelessness
• Increase educational support for children
experiencing homelessness with an emphasis on
youth experiencing homelessness
Introduction:
Child and Family Homelessness
Families with children are among the fastest growing
segments of the homeless population.4 School-age
children and youth account for nearly 40 percent of
the total homeless population in the United States.5
According to Education for Homeless Children and
Youth (EHCY) program data, the population of children
and youth experiencing homelessness has been steadily
increasing. From the 2006-07 School Year (SY) to the
2015-16 SY, the total number of identified children and
youth experiencing homelessness in public schools
approximately doubled from 679,724 to 1,366,520
students.6 This is a disturbing trend, as research shows
that children and youth experiencing homelessness are
at greater risk of negative educational outcomes such as
learning disabilities, dropping out, and other behavioral
and health problems.7
The McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act

Timely educational intervention is shown to change

the developmental trajectories of children and youth
experiencing homelessness8 who require access to a
quality education to overcome the many educational
challenges associated with homelessness. The MVHAA
was intended to mitigate the negative educational
outcomes homeless youth experience; it was the first
federal law regulating how Local Education Agencies
(LEAs)9 address the educational needs of students
experiencing homelessness.10 LEAs administer the
policies and procedures of the MVHAA and decide on
the use of funding for the education of children and
youth experiencing homelessness in their jurisdiction.
Nearly all of the MVHAA requirements fall under LEAs
and schools rather than state-level entities. However,
despite the provisions of the MVHAA, it is not clear that
its implementation has effectively and systematically
supported children and youth experiencing homelessness.

Under the MVHAA, LEA’s are required to offer the following assistance:

1) Students experiencing homelessness, who move, have the right to remain in their schools of origin (i.e., the
school the student attended when permanently housed or in which the student was last enrolled, including
preschools) if that is in the student’s best interest;
2) If it is in the student’s best interest to change schools, students experiencing homelessness must be
immediately enrolled in a new school, even if they do not have the records normally required for enrollment;
3) Transportation must be provided to or from a student’s school of origin, at the request of a parent, guardian,
or, in the case of an unaccompanied youth, the local homeless education liaison;
4) Students experiencing homelessness must have access to all programs and services for which they are
eligible, including special education services, preschool, school nutrition programs, language assistance for
English learners, career and technical education, gifted and talented programs, magnet schools, charter
schools, summer learning, online learning, and before- and after-school care;
5) Unaccompanied youths must be accorded specific protections, including immediate enrollment in school
without proof of guardianship; and
6) Parents, guardians, and unaccompanied youths have the right to dispute an eligibility, school selection, or
enrollment decision.11

HousingWorks RI Scholar Series 3

The MVHAA is, in theory, the key to positively changing
the education trajectory of many children and youth
experiencing homelessness. The Act outlines educational
services and supports for identified homeless students,
and captures more children and youth experiencing
homelessness than other federal agencies in its broad
definition of homelessness.
The MVHAA defines homeless children and youth12
as those living in emergency and transitional shelters,
doubled-up in homes with relatives and friends, and
living in hotels and motels, cars, campsites, parks, and
other public places. 13
It includes doubled-up families
within the definition of homelessness, which the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
excludes.15 The term doubled-up refers to a situation
where individuals are unable to maintain their housing
situation and are forced to stay with a series of friends
and/or extended family members.16 This broader and
more inclusive definition of homelessness is important
in capturing the majority of children and youth
experiencing homelessness, who qualify for support
and assistance as, nationally, the majority of identified
Methodology of the Study
This case study uses a mixed methods approach that
includes qualitative interviews with state coordinators,
local homeless education liaisons, shelter staff,
and families experiencing homelessness, as well as
quantitative educational outcomes data from the Rhode
Island Department of Education (RIDE). The qualitative
data are based on interviews with eight of Rhode
Island’s homeless education liaisons and 14 mothers
experiencing homelessness in two of Rhode Island’s four
family homeless shelters. There was also frequent
4 HousingWorks RI Scholar Series
homeless students are doubled-up rather than in
homeless shelters.17
The MVHAA was amended and reauthorized in
1990, 1994, 2002, and 2015 in response to various
implementation and structural problems that failed to
adequately identify and support children and youth
experiencing homelessness.18 The current MVHAA is
based on the 2015 amendment and reauthorization of the
MVHAA. The 2015 amendment was promulgated when
Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
ESSA included tighter regulation for schools and LEAs
14
in the planning and provision of services to students
experiencing homelessness, better protections for
students facing possible school transfers, and an increase
in authorized funding for the EHCY program within
the U.S. Department of Education.19 However, despite
the various amendments made, there are still persistent
problems with the implementation of the provisions
under the MVHAA. Resource allocation, sustainable
funding, and compliance with the requirements of the
law remain difficult for local jurisdictions.
communication with shelter staff in order to set up the
interviews. In addition, one meeting of mothers in one
of the shelters was observed. To gather insight into the
policies and systems overseeing the implementation
of MVHAA, three MVHAA coordinators were
interviewed. The quantitative data includes educational
outcome measures for children and youth experiencing
homelessness, which were analyzed within the context
of educational outcome measures for all Rhode Island
children and youth.
Implementation of the MVHAA
The lack of an official metric for measuring the
effectiveness of states at implementing the MVHAA
limits the accountability of states and school
districts. However, the Institute of Child, Poverty,
and Homelessness published a report in 2017,
titled Out of the Shadows: A State-by-State Ranking
of Accountability for Homeless Students (“The
Accountability Study”), to evaluate the performance
of states at identifying and supporting homeless
students. The Accountability Study used five
indicators to measure the effectiveness of states
at implementing the MVHAA. The five indicators
were: the percentage of children in Head Start who
experience homelessness; children experiencing
homelessness as a percentage of poor children in pre-
kindergarten; children experiencing homelessness
as a percentage of extremely poor children in
grades kindergarten-12 (K-12); percentage of all
students identified as homeless and doubled-up; and
percentage of students experiencing homelessness
identified as having a disability.20
This case study focuses on the Homeless Student
Indicator which calculates the number of homeless
children as a percentage of extremely poor children
in grades K-12 as one way to assess how well Rhode
Island identifies students experiencing homelessness.
Robust identification is the first step to serving
students experiencing homelessness, as identification
is needed to allocate services and resources to
each student.
The Accountability Study found that nationally, 30
percent of extremely poor children in grades K-12
are identified as homeless. Assessing the percentage
of extremely poor children in each state or LEA, as
captured by the U.S. Census’ American Community
Survey (ACS) data, is a standard proxy for the
potential number of students experiencing
homelessness since the true number of students
experiencing homelessness cannot be calculated.
The Accountability Study assumes that unidentified
homeless students live in each state and LEA.
Identifying a greater portion of children in extreme
poverty as homeless indicates that states or LEAs are
more effectively identifying students experiencing
homelessness. This measure will help to assess
whether states or LEAs are realizing the intent of
the law. There is also the possibility that the states
with fewer than 30 percent of extremely poor
children identified as homeless have an abundance of
affordable housing, although that does not appear to
be the case in Rhode Island.
One weakness of this measure is that the number and
percentage of children living in poverty are estimates,
not actual counts, as the American Community
Survey is a sample survey. The reliability of these
estimates varies by community. Furthermore, the
number of homeless students in each LEA may
be influenced by the presence of shelters. Having
more shelters in an LEA increases the identification
numbers, as shelters have a high concentration of
homeless students, who are also the most visible
homeless. If LEAs have more shelters, the number of
students experiencing homelessness as a percent of
the number of children and youth in poverty is likely
to be an overestimation of how well LEAs identify
students experiencing homelessness.
Nevertheless, calculating the number of children and
youth experiencing homelessness as a percentage of
extremely poor children in each state provides a
good estimate of the relative performance of states
HousingWorks RI Scholar Series 5
at identifying children and youth experiencing
homelessness. The ranking of states, from the
Accountability Study, can be seen in the map below.
As illustrated by the map, Rhode Island ranks 42nd
in the overall national ranking on the identification
of students experiencing homelessness based on
the five indicators. 21
The lack of a system-wide
mechanism, with strong protocols for homeless
education liaisons and school personnel to identify
students experiencing homelessness, combined with
insufficient resources given to homeless education
liaisons to carry out their legal responsibilities
under the MVHAA, has resulted in many Rhode
Island LEAs seriously under-identifying students
experiencing homelessness. This issue was found to
be pervasive in the interviews conducted for this
research. None of the homeless education liaisons
interviewed followed a standard protocol to identify
children and youth experiencing homelessness. A few
noted the difficulty of finding families experiencing
homelessness.

FIGURE 1 |
MVHAA in Rhode Island: Findings
Identification Levels of Rhode Island LEAs

WA ND
MT
MN
ME
SD WI VT
OR
ID WY MI NY NH
IA MA
NE
PA RI
IL IN OH
NV UT CO CT
KS MO WV NJ
KY VA
CA DE
OK TN NC MD
NM AR
AZ
SC
MS AL GA
TX LA

1-10 (top)
AK
CA FL
11-20

HI 21-30

31-40

Source: The Institute of Children, Poverty and Homelessness, 2017 41-51 (bottom)

6 HousingWorks RI Scholar Series

According to the Accountability Study, Rhode Island
only identified 9.7 percent of the extremely poor
children and youth as homeless in the 2014-15 SY.
This low identification of students experiencing
homelessness indicates a high probability that the
true number of students experiencing homelessness
is much higher than the reported number. Based
22
on the findings of the Accountability Study, “states
varied considerably in their ability to identify
homeless students, with Alaska, Utah and New York
identifying greater than 50% of extremely poor
students as homeless, while Connecticut and Rhode
Island identifying fewer than 10%.” From 2011 to
2015, there were an estimated 19,432 children and
youth in extreme poverty each year. This works out
to an estimated 3,945 unidentified children and youth
experiencing homelessness in Rhode Island. 23
More than half of the parents interviewed at both
shelters were not connected to a homeless education
liaison at the time of the interview, reiterating the
under-identification problem. However, it is possible
that the parents interviewed had not yet had school
contact because their children were too young.
According to the Rhode Island Kids Count Factbook,
51 percent of the children in Emergency Shelters,
Domestic Violence Shelters and Transitional Housing
Facilities in 2017 were ages 0-5.24
liaisons raised when asked about the challenges they
faced in implementing the law. Homeless education
liaisons acknowledged that given the population and
poverty levels of their LEAs, it is almost certain that
they are under-identifying the number of students
experiencing homelessness in their jurisdictions. As
one local homeless education liaison put it:
Goodness gracious, are we really
helping everyone? We know we are not.
Despite only identifying a portion of extremely poor
students as homeless, the number of children and
youth identified as homeless in Rhode Island has
continued to increase over the past few years. During
the 2015-16 SY, Rhode Island public school personnel
reported 1,049 preschool-12 students as homeless, a 5.2
percent increase from the 2013-14 SY.25 This reflects
the worsening problem of family homelessness and
the urgent need to improve the effectiveness of the
MVHAA in Rhode Island.

Nevertheless, the fact that the majority of interviewed

parents in shelters had no contact with a homeless
education liaison is concerning as sheltered homeless
are the most visible homeless. If sheltered families are
not connected to homeless education liaisons, then
those who are the least visible and often hidden, such
as families doubling-up with their family or friends,
are very unlikely to be identified.

The identification of children and youth experiencing

homelessness was the key challenge that 62.5 percent
(n=5) of eight interviewed homeless education

HousingWorks RI Scholar Series 7

Student Mobility

The student mobility rate of students experiencing homelessness decreased slightly by 7.3 percent from
2013 to 2017, even though it has fluctuated over the years. The student mobility rate for students
experiencing homelessness in Rhode Island is on average three times higher than that of the total Rhode Island
student population.

FIGURE 2 |
Student Mobility of Students Experiencing Homeless vs. the Total RI Student Population

60%-

49.9%
50%- 46.0%
46.4%
43.4% Homeless
41.8%
40%-

30%-

20%-

14% 14% 14% Total RI Students

10%- 13% 13%

0%-
-2013

-2013.5

-2014

-2014.5

-2015

-2015.5

-2016

-2016.5

-2017

-2017.5

Additionally, it is important to note that students experiencing homelessness and students who are housed
are likely to experience different kinds of student mobility. Based on the exit codes, the mobility of students
experiencing homelessness is due to transfers to other public schools in the same LEA, a different LEA, or
a different state.26 There were no students experiencing homelessness recorded for transferring to private
or charter schools in the exit codes. In contrast, for the general student population, there are likely students
recorded in other exit codes, such as transferring to private religiously affiliated, or non-religiously affiliated
schools, and charter schools.

8 HousingWorks RI Scholar Series

Chronic Absenteeism

The chronic absenteeism rate for the total Rhode Island student population was reported in the Rhode Island
Kids Count Factbook for K-3, middle school and high school students separately. The yearly chronic absenteeism
rate for all Rhode Island students was calculated manually by taking the total number of students that were
chronically absent divided by the number of students in Rhode Island that were enrolled for 90 days or more.

FIGURE 3 |
Chronic Absenteeism of Students Experiencing Homeless vs. the Total RI Student Population

40%-

33.9%
35%-
31.6% Homeless

30%-
26.9%
25.0% 26.6%
25%-

20%-
18.88% 19.58% Total RI Students
17.55%
15%- 17.26% 17.18%

10%-

5%-

0%-
-2013

-2013.5

-2014

-2014.5

-2015

-2015.5

-2016

-2016.5

-2017

-2017.5

There is a general upward trend in the chronic absenteeism rates for children experiencing homelessness, which
has increased by 35.6 percent or 8.9 percentage points from 2013 to 2017. In contrast, the chronic absenteeism
rate for all Rhode Island students has had a smaller increase of 13.2 percent. This has resulted in a widening
gap in the chronic absenteeism rate for students experiencing homelessness and the total Rhode Island student
population from 2013 to 2017.

HousingWorks RI Scholar Series 9

Suspension Rates

The suspension rates of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 17.4 percent from 14.4 percent in 2011
to 11.9 percent in 2017, but increased in 2014 and 2016, reaching a high of 16.3 percent in 2014. However, the
downward trend in suspension rates of students experiencing homelessness is not conclusive, due to fluctuations
over the years and the lack of data after 2017. The suspension rates for the total student population decreased
by 54.8 percent over that period. The sharp decline in suspension rates for all students in 2012 is due to stricter
Rhode Island laws against suspensions.

FIGURE 4 |
Suspension Rates of Students Experiencing Homelessness vs. Total RI Student Population

35%-
31% 30%

30%-

23% 22%
25%-
19% Total RI Students
17%
20%-
14%
16.3%
15%- 14.3%
14.6% 14.2%
14.4% 11.2% 11.9% Homeless
10%-

5%-

0%-
-2011

-2012

-2013

-2014

-2015

-2016

-2017

In 2012, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed a law prohibiting schools from suspending students out of
school solely based on their absenteeism.27 Since then, there have been continued efforts to reduce the high
suspension rates. In June 2016, Governor Raimondo signed a bill into law that “restricted the use of out-of-school
suspensions to situations when a child’s behavior poses a demonstrable threat that cannot be dealt with by other
means and required school districts to identify any racial, ethnic, or special education disparities and develop a
plan to reduce such disparities.”28 This law made it harder for schools to suspend students for minor infractions.29
The 2012 and the 2016 laws have collectively regulated and lowered the number of suspensions for all Rhode
Island students. It is thus worrying that the suspension rates of students experiencing homelessness have not
decreased proportionately over time.

10 HousingWorks RI Scholar Series

Homeless families interviewed also shared that:
• Problems with the frontline service delivery of the
MVHAA include delayed inter-LEA transportation.
One parent shared that she waited at least 2 months
for state transportation, even though under the
guidelines it is supposed to happen within 48 hours.
This delay is due to state busing being unable
to accommodate these transportation requests,
something which education homeless liaisons have
little control over. The delay in transportation has led
to students changing schools when they moved to a
LEA different from their school of origin. Roughly 40
percent (42.9 percent; n=6) of interviewed parents said
that their children’s education has been disrupted
since moving to the shelter.
• Many identified students experiencing homelessness
do not get satisfactory educational support, as
there are few educational programs for students
experiencing homelessness. The majority of the
homeless parents interviewed said that their children
received no extra educational help in school and
several sheltered parents said they received no
educational support within the shelter. Older youth
in particular have a harder time adjusting in school
because few in-school and after-school programs are
tailored to them and they face greater social pressures
to fit in.
• Parents experiencing homelessness whose children
were receiving MVHAA resources said they were
able to get school supplies, clothing vouchers,
and other necessities for their children. However,
homeless students’ educational experience differed
according to their ages, the length of time that
they have experienced homelessness, and whether
they had an Individualized Educational Program
(IEP). Having a homeless student advocate within
the school could greatly improve the support and
experience of these students.
Persistent Implementation
Problems with the MVHAA
Systematic Underfunding
Since its inception in 1987, many have argued that
the MVHAA is chronically underfunded nationwide.
While the funding levels have increased since 1987
to reach $85 million in 2017 through 2020,30 funding
increases are not commensurate with the rapidly
growing needs and number of students experiencing
homelessness, and the increasing requirements for
states and LEAs to abide by the updated versions of
the MVHAA.
Very few LEAs in Rhode Island receive subgrants,
which shows a systematic failure to seek appropriate
resources for assistance. Providence, the largest LEA
in Rhode Island, does not receive a subgrant. The
homeless education liaison officers said in interviews
that this is a “competitive subgrant,” requiring extra
work for liaison officers. Some liaisons in smaller
LEAs with fewer students experiencing homelessness
similarly do not apply for it as they think that they
will not qualify.
Uneven Distribution of Subgrants
Exacerbating the underfunding problem, the uneven
distribution of MVHAA subgrants throughout the state
leads to some LEAs lacking funds and being unable
to meet the MVHAA requirements.31 The federal
government requires that 75 percent of funding
given to states be distributed to LEAs as three-year
local subgrant awards. The state may use the rest to
fund their activities related to promoting the needs
of children experiencing homelessness in the schools.
Each LEA that would like to apply for a subgrant, must
comply with federally mandated requirements for
the submission of the subgrant application to the State
Education Agency (SEA). This competitive application
HousingWorks RI Scholar Series 11
process for funding McKinney-Vento assistance
is a challenge to LEAs that do not have the time or
resources to apply. The result is an uneven distribution
of funds and implementation of assistance to students
experiencing homelessness.
Limited Collaboration
A lack of collaboration among homeless education
liaisons, school administrators, teachers, service
agencies, and family members limits the effectiveness
of the MVHAA at the local level.33 Collaboration
is defined as having policies and procedures that
enable interaction with community agencies to
provide essential resources and services to families
experiencing homelessness.34 Collaboration is
especially important for implementing the MVHAA
as identifying students experiencing homelessness is
often challenging and connecting with local service
providers expands the outreach to identify students
experiencing homelessness. This case study found
homeless education liaisons interviewed in Rhode
Island that exhibited strong collaboration with local
agencies had a higher identification rate of students
experiencing homelessness.
Different community agencies are also needed
to provide holistic help to families experiencing
homelessness, who often have diverse needs.
Stakeholders have to acknowledge their shared
responsibility and make a concerted effort to
collectively identify students facing homelessness and
provide them with the appropriate resources.35
In theory, collaboration is done through policy-
mandated local homeless education liaisons who
are required to work with other service providers
to promote educational stability and opportunity.36
However, a study by Hallett, Skrla, and Low found
that homeless education liaisons frequently lack key
12 HousingWorks RI Scholar Series
community connections and familiarity with social
processes to adequately support students experiencing
homelessness.37 Lack of collaboration among different
actors involved in the implementation of the MVHAA
impedes the provision of services to students
experiencing homelessness.
Lack of Knowledge,
Limited Capacity, and
Weak Accountability of
Homeless Education Liaisons
The lack of awareness and knowledge of the
MVHAA by local homeless education liaisons,
and the fact that many have other administrative
jobs within the LEA, reduces their efficiency in
implementing the MVHAA.38 In many LEAs, the
homeless liaisons are administrators who wear
many hats, such as superintendents or assistant
superintendents. While the MVHAA mandates
annual homeless education liaison trainings, it is
likely insufficient to train homeless education liaisons
to properly identify and support children and youth
experiencing homelessness. More importantly,
homeless education liaisons often lack the capacity
to effectively implement the MVHAA. None of the
homeless education liaisons in Rhode Island are
full-time; they all hold other positions, resulting in
insufficient time to identify and support students
experiencing homelessness. Of the homeless education
liaisons interviewed, 75 percent (n=6) failed to
conduct outreach to identify children experiencing
homelessness and relied on self-disclosure by families
experiencing homelessness, which was the most
common way of identification. This may contribute
to homeless children and youth going unidentified,
especially if homeless parents are reticent about
disclosing their housing status. Homeless education
liaisons’ reliance on self-disclosure is likely unable
to comprehensively identify hidden families
experiencing homelessness. not report their homelessness to the school. This
The lack of knowledge and limited capacity of
homeless education liaisons is enabled by the lack
of accountability, as there is weak enforcement of
their responsibilities. There is no official evaluation
of the effectiveness of homeless education liaisons
at identifying and supporting students experiencing
homelessness. The quality of support that homeless
education liaisons provide to students experiencing
homelessness is also, not measured beyond fulfilling
the basic requirements of the MVHAA, resulting in
limited incentive for homeless education liaisons
to perform.
Homeless education liaisons’ capacity is limited
due to other pressing work commitments. Many
homeless education liaisons interviewed do not
conduct outreach to identify students experiencing
homelessness. Instead, they rely on self-disclosure
from families experiencing homelessness. This
lack of outreach to identify students experiencing
homelessness, who are often hidden and hard
to identify, amplifies the problem of under-
identification.
Additionally, a lack of awareness about the MVHAA
in the community, especially among school personnel
that have frequent contact with students, may result
in a failure to identify and provide access to MVHAA
services for students experiencing homelessness.
Parents’ Limited Awareness
of their Children’s
Educational Rights
Despite the provisions of the MVHAA, parents may
have limited awareness of the legally guaranteed
assistance under the MVHAA, and thus may
contributes to negative outcomes for students
experiencing homelessness, especially those
doubled-up in homes of family and friends, to be
hidden and unidentified. This lack of identification
denies students experiencing homelessness access
to services and provisions to which they are legally
entitled under the MVHAA.39 It is possible that
some parents are reticent about revealing their
homelessness due to fears about having their children
removed from their care.
This limited awareness among families may also be
due to the lack of outreach conducted by homeless
education liaisons in Rhode Island. For many Rhode
Island LEAs, the main resource that homeless
education liaison officers have to reach students
experiencing homelessness is MVHAA posters from
the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE).
Even then, only some homeless education liaisons
put up these posters in schools.40 These posters are
also likely insufficient to create awareness among the
community (both service providers to the homeless
and the homeless themselves) about a homeless
student’s educational rights under the MVHAA.
Additionally, even if identified, parents’ lack of
awareness of their children’s rights may also limit
the services that they receive, as some provisions
under the MVHAA are not affirmative and must
be requested. It is uncertain whether parents or
guardians will make such requests when necessary.
Parents and guardians may simply be unaware of
this provision of the law, or they may be unable or
unwilling to make a request.41
HousingWorks RI Scholar Series 13
 Policy Recommendations for Rhode Island
Based on best practices of other states that rank highly in identifying children and youth
experiencing homelessness, there are several opportunities for Rhode Island to improve assistance
to this population.42 Below are specific recommendations that are feasible in Rhode Island:

1) To improve identification, homeless education liaisons should have direct

relationships with local shelter staff and other community workers who operate
inside the social network of families experiencing homelessness.

Stronger relationships between homeless education liaisons and local service providers
is necessary to expand the network of identification and service support to students
experiencing homelessness. To increase identification, homeless education liaisons should
establish ongoing coordination with local shelter staff. In this way, those families with school-
aged children, seeking shelter, can be referred directly to a liaison for MVHAA assistance.
This is an immediate solution to the under-identified students living in shelters.

For the population of students who are doubled-up, living in cars, couch surfing, or have run away
from home, it is more difficult to improve identification. However, it is recommended that liaisons
develop strong relationships with social service organizations that touch this population (e.g., outreach
workers). For example, collaboration with Head Start programs: Women, Infants and Children
(WIC); Department of Human Services; home visiting programs; local shelters; school personnel; and
other local service providers can increase identification and implementation of MVHAA services.

2) Minimize barriers to LEAs receiving subgrants and increase funding.

The lack of LEA funding is also compounded by the uneven distribution of subgrants
across LEAs in Rhode Island. Currently, many large LEAs with high numbers of children
and youth experiencing homelessness do not apply for or receive subgrants. Greater
assistance to homeless education liaisons in applying for the subgrant is crucial.

3) Rhode Island should have school-based homeless education liaisons

in addition to the LEA-based homeless education liaisons.

The MVHAA program should consider instituting school-based homeless education liaisons,
in addition to LEA homeless education liaisons. School-based homeless education liaisons can
be the school counselor, or other personnel who have close contact with students. School-
based homeless education liaisons can improve identification of students experiencing
homelessness and provide immediate access to MVHAA services.43 Some Rhode Island
shelters already recognize the effectiveness of connecting directly with schools by bypassing
the homeless education liaisons in order to access services for students in need.44

14 HousingWorks RI Scholar Series

4) Mandatory training for school personnel.

In order to effectively advance services and supports to students experiencing homelessness,

mandatory trainings for school personnel are recommended. Trainings should include requirements
of the MVHAA, how to recognize signs of homelessness, and how to direct students experiencing
homelessness to homeless education liaisons. This can increase the likelihood of successful
identification and referral of students experiencing homelessness to homeless education liaisons.
Training is especially important for new principals and secretaries before they start the school year
in August, as principals and secretaries receive a lot of calls about families who are either moving
into the shelter or come in from outside the community during the school registration period.

5) Greater community awareness about homelessness and support available.

Building awareness across personnel and the public can increase self-identification and requests for
services. Increased general community awareness about homelessness and the resources available
under the MVHAA will allow the larger community to guide families that come into homelessness
to the appropriate and available resources.45 A crucial part of community awareness is educating the
public that being doubled-up with friends or family, due to loss of housing or economic hardship,
counts as being homeless and entitles families to MVHAA services and resources. Additionally,
public education must dispel the notion that there will be repercussions for disclosing one’s
homeless situation,46 in order to increase self-disclosure by families experiencing homelessness.

6) Increased educational support, especially for older youth.

Educational support to students experiencing homelessness is lacking in Rhode Island.

There needs to be stronger in-school and after-school educational support provided
to students experiencing homelessness. It is recommended that Rhode Island targets
educational services for students experiencing homelessness, including early childhood
education, before and after-school programs, mentoring, and summer programs. Older
youth experiencing homelessness may need additional services. In interviews with shelter
staff and families experiencing homelessness, it was found that youth in high school often
receive little help, contributing to many falling into “bad company” or dropping out.47

HousingWorks RI Scholar Series 15

Conclusion
The MVHAA has been an excellent addition to the
provision of services to Rhode Island‘s students who
are experiencing homelessness. The identification of
students experiencing homelessness is a prevailing
challenge that LEAs across Rhode Island face, evident
from how more than half of the parents interviewed
at shelters had no contact with a homeless education
liaison. This is despite sheltered homeless families
with school-aged children being the most visible of
this population. Resource constraints, compounded
by the lack of collaboration among homeless
education liaisons, service providers, and the
community, along with the weak accountability of
homeless education liaisons and enforcement of the
MVHAA, contribute to the poor identification of and
support for students experiencing homelessness.
However, families identified by homeless education
liaisons generally experienced few problems trying
to obtain MVHAA services, such as intra-LEA
transportation and getting school supplies. Yet, few
students experiencing homelessness received extra
educational support under the MVHAA, especially older
youth. The lack of educational support that children and
youth experiencing homelessness receive contributes
to some homeless students falling behind in school and
consequently losing motivation and dropping out.
16 HousingWorks RI Scholar Series
ENDNOTES
1
McKinney Vento - Law in Practice; The McKinney Vento Act at a Glance.
(2008). National Center for Homeless Education. Retrieved from: https://
communications.madison.k12.wi.us/files/pubinfo/McKinneyV entoAtAGlance.
pdf
2
United States Department of Education, 2018
3
Out of the Shadows: A State-by-State Ranking of Accountability for Homeless
Students, 2017. The Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness (ICPH).
Retrieved from http://www.icphusa.org/ national/shadows-state-state-ranking-
accountability-homeless- students/
4
Wilson, Allison B., Squires, Jane, 2014 Young Children and Families
Experiencing Homelessness. Infants & Young Children Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 259–271
5
Canfield, J. P., Harley, D., Teasley, M. L., & Nolan, J., 2017. Validating the
McKinney–Vento Act Implementation Scale: Examining the factor structure and
reliability. Children & Schools, 39(1), 53-60. doi:10.1093/cs/cdw047
6
United States Department of Education, 2016
7
Cunningham, M., Harwood, R., & Hall, S., 2010. Residential instability and the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Children and Education Program: What we know, plus
gaps in research. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
8
Wilson, Allison B., Squires, Jane, 2014 Young Children and Families
Experiencing Homelessness. Infants & Young Children Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 259–271
9
A Local Education Agency (LEA) is a public board of education or other public
authority legally constituted within a State to provide administrative control or
a service for public elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township,
school district, or other political subdivision of a State.
10
Canfield, J. P., Harley, D., Teasley, M. L., & Nolan, J., 2017. Validating the
McKinney–Vento Act Implementation Scale: Examining the factor structure and
reliability. Children & Schools, 39(1), 53-60. doi:10.1093/cs/cdw047
11
United States Department of Education Fact Sheet: Supporting the Success of
Homeless Children and Youths, July 27, 2016. Also see https://naehcy.org/essa-
implementation-best-practice-and-other-technical-assistance-tools/
Miller, P. M., 2013. Educating (More and More) Students Experiencing
12
Homelessness: An Analysis of Recession-Era Policy and Practice. Educational
Policy, 27(5), 805-838.
2017 Rhode Island Kids Count Factbook, 2017. Rhode Island KIDS COUNT.
13
Retrieved from http:// www.rikidscount.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/
Factbook%202017/2017%20R I%20Kids%20Count%20Factbook%20for%20
website.pdf
14
According to the MVHAA, a doubled-up family is defined as “sharing the
housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar
reason.”
15
Hallett, R. E, Skrla, L, & Low, J., 2015. That is not what homeless is: a school
district’s journey toward serving homeless, doubled-up, and economically
displaced children and youth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 28:6, 671-692
16
National Health Care for the Homeless Council, What is the official definition
of homelessness? Retrieved from https://www.nhchc.org/faq/official-definition-
homelessness/
17
Out of the Shadows: A State-by-State Ranking of Accountability for Homeless
Students, 2017. The Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness (ICPH).
Retrieved from http://www.icphusa.org/ national/shadows-state-state-ranking-
accountability-homeless- students/
18
U.S. Department of Education, 2015
19
Out of the Shadows: A State-by-State Ranking of Accountability
for Homeless Students, 2017. The Institute for Children, Poverty,
and Homelessness (ICPH). Retrieved from http://www.icphusa.org/
national/shadows-state-state-ranking-accountability-homeless-
students/
20
Tolbert, Janice, 2017 How Can Schools Provide Homeless Students
with Emotional and Behavioral Support? – Institute for Children,
Poverty & Homelessness. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.icphusa.org/
blog/can-schools-provide-homeless-students-emotional-behavioral-
support/.
21
Out of the Shadows: A State-by-State Ranking of Accountability
for Homeless Students, 2017. The Institute for Children, Poverty,
and Homelessness (ICPH). Retrieved from http://www.icphusa.org/
national/shadows-state-state-ranking-accountability-homeless-
students/
22
National Center for Homeless Education, 2009. Consolidated
State Profile. Retrieved from http:// profiles.nche.seiservices.com/
ConsolidatedStateProfile.aspx
23
This figure is calculated by taking 0.203*19432 = 3945 (rounded up to
the nearest whole number).
2017 Rhode Island Kids Count Factbook, 2017. Rhode Island KIDS
24
COUNT. Retrieved from http://www.rikidscount.org/Portals/0/
Uploads/Documents/Factbook%202017/2017%20RI%20Kids%20
Count%20Factbook%20for%20website.pdf
25
2017 Housing Fact Book, 2017. Housing Works RI. Retrieved
from https://www.housingworksri.org/ Portals/0/Uploads/
Documents/2017_Housing%20Fact% 20Book.pdf
26
For the mobility of homeless students, data was received from RIDE,
which gave every student who switched schools an exit code. Exit
codes 1-12, list “the circumstances under which the student exited from
membership in an educational institution” RIDE, 2017. However, in
the dataset used for this research, only exit codes 1-3 where recorded,
which are for transfers to public schools in the same LEA, a different
LEA, or a different state, respectively.
27
Rhode Island Kids Count, 2015
28
Rhode Island Kids Count, 2017
29
Bradley, Anthony. “Rhode Island Makes It Difficult to Suspend
Students.” Acton Institute PowerBlog. September 21, 2016. Retrieved
April 11, 2018. http://blog.acton.org/archives/89089-rhode-island-
makes-it-difficult-to-suspend-students.html.
30
National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and
Youth; Authorization and Funding History of the McKinney-Vento Act’s
Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program, 2016. Schoolhouse
Connection. Retrieved from https://www.schoolhouseconnection.org/
wp-content/uploads/ 2016/12/mvhistory.pdf
31
Hallett, R. E, Skrla, L, & Low, J., 2015. That is not what homeless is:
a school district’s journey toward serving homeless, doubled-up, and
economically displaced children and youth. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 28:6, 671-692
Wixom, M. A., 2016 State and Federal Policy: Homeless youth.
32
Education Commission of the States. 7
33
Wilkins, T. B., Mullins, M. H., Mahan, A., & Canfield, J. P., 2016.
Homeless Education homeless liaisons’ Awareness about the
Implementation of the McKinney--Vento Act. Children & Schools, 38(1),
57-64. doi:10.1093/ cs/cdv041
34
Canfield, J. P., Teasley, M. L., Abell, N., & Randolph, K. A., 2012.
Validation of a McKinney- Vento Act Implementation Scale. Research
on Social Work Practice, 22, 410–419.
35
Ibid.
36
Wilkins, T. B., Mullins, M. H., Mahan, A., & Canfield, J. P., 2016.
Homeless Education homeless liaisons’ Awareness about the
Implementation of the McKinney--Vento Act. Children & Schools, 38(1),
57-64. doi:10.1093/ cs/cdv041
37
Hallett, R. E, Skrla, L, & Low, J., 2015. That is not what homeless is:
a school district’s journey toward serving homeless, doubled-up, and
economically displaced children and youth. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 28:6, 671-692
38
Wilkins, T. B., Mullins, M. H., Mahan, A., & Canfield, J. P., 2016.
Homeless Education homeless liaisons’ Awareness about the
Implementation of the McKinney--Vento Act. Children & Schools, 38(1),
57-64. doi:10.1093/ cs/cdv041
Wixom, M. A., 2016 State and Federal Policy: Homeless youth.
39
Education Commission of the States.
40
Personal communication, education homeless liaison, January 12,
2018.
41
Tanabe, C. S., & Mobley, I. H., 2011. The Forgotten Students: The
Implications of Federal Homeless Education Policy for Children in
Hawaii. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 2011(1),
51-74.
42
As referenced in the earlier chapters in my thesis, the ranking of
states was done by the Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness
in the 2017 Out of the Shadows: A State-by-State Ranking of
Accountability for Homeless Students report.
43
As referenced in the earlier chapters in my thesis, the ranking of
states was done by the Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness
in the 2017 Out of the Shadows: A State-by-State Ranking of
Accountability for Homeless Students report.
44
Personal communication, Jennifer Barrera, Program Director at
Lucy’s Hearth, April 3, 2018.
45
Personal communication, education homeless liaison, January 18,
2018.
46
Anzilotti, E., 2016, September 29). What it Will Take to Keep
Homeless Students in School. Retrieved from https://www.citylab.com/
equity/2016/09/homeless-students-school-every- student-succeeds-
act/502046/
Personal communication, Angela Ferrara, Crossroads Family Shelter
47
Case Manager, January 30, 2018.
HousingWorks RI Scholar Series 17
 SCHOLAR SERIES One Empire Plaza
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
Contemporary Issues in Housing www.HousingWorksRI.org

Design: Lakuna Design